Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergeant Bluff-Luton Primary School

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect --Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sergeant Bluff-Luton Primary School

Sergeant Bluff-Luton Primary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Generic primary school. No claim of notability. WP:NOT a directory of schools, especially primary schools. Even if they do employ bus drivers. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete How many of these have we seen? YechielMan 00:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Sergeant Bluff-Luton School District. All school districts are notable. Most high schools are notable. Some middle schools are notable. Very few elementary schools are notable. As a school that only covers PreK through second grade, it was unlikely that any supporting material was found, and a search on Google and Google News / Archive found no glimmers of notability. As the school district article exists, a target for a merge/redirect is available and a trimmed down version of this article should be copied over to the district article. Alansohn 00:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be hard to say why allschool districts must be notable. Some small ones--like this-- might be parts of the article for the city or county or other region. Just a comment to keep in mind. DGG 06:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Merge all related articles (primary, elementary, middle, high) to the district article. *Cremepuff222* 01:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to the District as per Alansohn. We don't need a list of who the officials are within a particular school especially as at least some of the information in the article was wrong before an e-mail to the unblock list led to a correction and I suspect to this AfD nomination. If there was verifiable information from reliable sources for this article, there might be a case for a standalone article but there isn't. Capitalistroadster 02:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N and WP:V. I am opposed to merging the information here per WP:V, particularly in light of the accuracy concerns raised by Capitalistroadster. I would support merging any facts backed by reliable sources. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N. Eusebeus 22:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete, non-notableJewishprincess 23:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Do NOT delete, Merge/Redirect per AlansJohn. Noroton 00:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.